BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

                  Present : Sri P.V. Subrahmanyam, B.A.,B.L., President

      Smt Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member

  Sri G.Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc.,B.Ed.,LL.B., PGADR (NALSAR)

                 Male Member

Wednesday, the 12^th day of January 2011

C.C. No. 39 of 2010

Between:

Smt. Devakrupa W/o Ananthram,

Aged: 58 years, Occ: House Hold,

R/o H.No. 4-8-92/4, Manjeeranagar,

Sangareddy, Medak Dist.                                 …..Complainant

And

1.  Branch  Manager,

State Bank of Hyderabad,

Branch Zaheerabad.

2.  Branch Manager,

State Bank of Hyderabad,

Branch Sangareddy, Pin 502 001.                         ….Opposite parties

         This case came up for final hearing before us on 05.01.2011 in the presence of Sri Ch. Nagender, Advocate for complainant, Sri M. Prabhakar Gupta, Advocate for opposite party No. 1 and Sri Ananth Rao Kulkarni, Advocate for opposite party No. 2, upon hearing arguments of both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

(Per Smt. Meena Ramanathan, Lady Member)

1.                  This complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 by Complainant alleging that the first opposite party State Bank of Hyderabad, Zaheerabad Branch and second opposite party State bank of Hyderabad, Sangareddy branch  passed cheque bearing No. 795027 despite being intimated vide letter dated 22.10.2009 under certificate of posting that the cheque should not be honoured. The complainant already had an account with State Bank of Hyderabad, Zaheerabad bearing No. 52128457332 and letter got a transfer to Sangareddy branch. He informed opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 that the cheque was misplaced but it was encashed by one Mr. Srinivas dated 03.11.2009. Figures written on the cheque was for Rs.8,000/- and in words it was written as “rupees eighty thousand”(Rs. 80,000/-). Despite this glaring blunder, opposite party No. 1 passed the cheque. They have not done any verification and it is a clear case of negligence on the part of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. They have over looked the letter dated 22.10.2009 and passed the cheque. The complainant therefore has approached this honourable forum. Hence the complaint with a prayer to direct the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- to the complainant being the cheque amount and also to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and cost of Rs. 5,000/- in the larger interest of justice and equity.

2.           The opposite party No. 1 filed their counter stating that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable either on the facts or on record. Claiming that the complainant issued a cheque in the name of Srinivas and has admitted her signature on the cheque, hence they rightly paid the amount. Had she informed the bank not to pass the cheque in writing, they would have followed the instructions. They claim that according to core banking system the bank needs to verify the signature of the Account holder only and then make the payment. They have followed the procedure. When there is difference with regard to amount in words and in figures the bank pays the smaller amount. As such there is no deficiency of service on their part and no relief can be granted.     

3.        Opposite party No.2 agreed with the contentions made by opposite party No. 1. They also denied the letter dated 22.10.2009 and say that the complainant did not inform the bank to stop the payment. No written complaint was made before the bank and they have followed their core banking system. That the complainant is making a false claim against the bank to enrich herself. They are a Nationalized bank with a good reputation. The complainant did not take correct steps to lodge the complaint.

4.        The complainant submitted evidence in the form of affidavit and got marked Exs. A1 to A7 in support of the claim. Whereas the opposite parties to support their oral argument, filed their counter and written arguments. Oral argument of both sides heard. Perused the record.

5.          The point for consideration is whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in passing the cheque and if so what relief?

6.         Ex.A1 is xerox copy of bank pass book vide Account No. 52128457332. Ex. A2 is xerox copy of letter of complainant to opposite parties dated 22.10.2009. Ex. A3 Certificate of posting. Ex.A4 is Xerox copy of letter to opposite party No. 2. Ex.A5 is Xerox copy of cheque bearing No. 795027 (misplaced cheque) dated 03.11.2009. Ex.A6 is Xerox copy of letter to opposite party No. 1 and Ex.A7 are professional courier receipt.

7.        The opposite party No. 1 denied that at no point did the complainant file the letter particularly on 22.10.2009 and that the complainant issued a cheque in the name of Srinivas and also admitted the signature on the cheque. There is a core banking system and according to this the bank verified the signature of the account holder and then made the payment. In this case also they have done the same. There is no need for clearance and payment because if it is not a different bank, the opposite party No. 2 also reiterates that they did not receive the letter dated 22.10.2009. The complainant did not inform the bank to stop the payment. The complainant has to file a written complaint before the bank to stop the payment – which was not done. They further  argue that their allegations are vague and that the bank has followed the core banking system. They submit that bank has rightly cleared cheque for an amount of Rs. 8,000/- . They are a nationalized bank with a very good reputation.

8.        On the other hand, the complainant has exhibited documents A1 to A7 to support her claim. Ex. A2 the letter goes to show that the complainant took the necessary steps to inform her bank about the misplaced cheque. Moreover Ex.A3 shows that she sent it under certificate of posting. Despite her taking this precaution the cheque was passed on 03.11.2009 i.e. almost a week after informing the opposite party No. 1 bank. Ex.A5 the cheque bearing No. 795027 has a glaring mistake-the figure states Rs. 8,000/- and in words it says “rupees eighty thousand” (Rs. 80,000/-). Should a bank honour a cheque with such a glaring mistake? The complainant has admitted that she signed a blank cheque which was lost or misplaced, for which she informed the bank through the letter. They have over looked a client’s request and have passed a cheque with such a glaring difference. Is this core banking system and should a nationalized bank with such a good reputation pass such a cheque? The opposite parties did not submit any rules and regulations to support their arguments. Merely stating that core banking system allows a cheque to be passed by verifying the signature, is not palatable. This clearly amounts to negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is entitled for appropriate compensation.
9.         In the result the complaint is allowed and direct the opposite parties to repay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of 03.11.2009 (i.e. the date cheque was passed) to realization, and further to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and cost of Rs.1000/-, one month time is granted for the payment of above amounts.

       Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this  12^th   day of January 2011.

    Sd/-                                              Sd/-                                         Sd/-

President                         Lady Member                   Male Member

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                                            WITNESS EXAMINED

For Complainant:                                                          For Opposite parties:

          -Nil-                                                                               -Nil-

 EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainant:                                                          For Opposite parties:

                                                                                Sd/-

LADY MEMBER

Copy to

1. The Complainant              copy delivered to the Complainant/
2. The Opposite parties                         Opposite parties On ______
3. Spare copy

Dis.No.       /2011, dt.